As the Third Christian Millennium dawns, the Caribbean is at kairos: the nexus of opportunity and risk. In light of the Christocentric fulness theme of Ephesians 4:9 - 24, perspectives and counsel will be offered to support reformation, transformation and blessing towards a truly sustainable future under God.

Friday, October 30, 2009

I have had to respond to a cluster of assertions (some of them slanderous) at Barbados Underground, in a blog thread here.

My comments overnight -- the posting mechanism at BU seems to be locking it out -- are:

_________________

Moderators:

I must further comment in response to an unfortunate slander.

+++++++++++

NS:

1] You have failed to apologise for slander. Thus, you have shown yourself to be a willful indulger in verbal violence. Onlookers, kindly observe.

2] Sources vs substance

NS -- including through his own slanders against me [false accusations of racism, advocacy of violence etc] -- has resorted to a common tactic when one has not the substance -- attack the source.

In fact the onward cites and links I gave are replete with detailed onward links and themselves indicate the breadth of the understanding that CAIR is a subversive and Jihadistic group: FBI reports, Court testimony and record (the documents in discovery at the Holy Land Foundation trial -- this link is to Wiki which puts the conviction on retrial in a short paragraph, cf Dallas Morning news here, and the arabic document and translation [pp15 ff] and discussion here, plus this more detailed documentation compilation and notes here by IPT, also this summary on a key point -- are a treasure trove on what is going on all by themselves . . . ), testimony by a wide array of Congresspeople of the US who are not otherwise noted to be in general agreement. (And, BTW, sometimes, it is those who are specifically motivated who are the best sources on an issue. the issue is not who, but the balance on the facts and related reasoning. Notice how in the cited AP report and commentary by JW, the "standard" rebuttal tactic is to attach the man not deal with the facts . . . )

AND, the author of the book-length expose/report in question -- which recall rests on 12,000 pp of largely internal and undeniable CAIR documents, and 300 hrs of videotape [which have actually not been objected to, CAIR has instead attacked the person] -- is authored by a person whose personal life and career highlights give lie to he accusation that it is motivated by racial bigotry etc.

So, onlookers, I leave you to decide for yourselves whose report you will believe on the merits, why.

3] CAIR 5k vs 50 k membership

Of course CAIR's membership levels and trends show that it is thankfully not dominant in the US Muslim population.

However, it has long been a major media and official voice, even used by the US Government in training etc; on the previous understanding that it is a spokesman for the Muslim people of the USA, and that it is moderate.

In short, a major issue with CAIR is that given its foundational connnexions to HAMAS and so the Muslim Brotherhood and the pattern of exposed behaviour linked to terrorism support by word and funding, is that it serves as a agent of subversive influence. As we should recall from the Cold War era, agents of influence do not have to have great numbers, just the access to media, academy and official circles to exert subversive force. And the intent to do that is documented in the AP article linked already:

________________

>>. . . The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on "work for the Palestinian cause on the American front." The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government.

The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.

One was Holy Land [Foundation], which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas. [On the retrial, they were convicted on all 108 counts in Nov 2008.]

Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.

And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.

For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI.

The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity's leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine....

"It's clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States," Farah said. "It's in their own words, it's a political infiltration that worked for 40 years." . . . .

One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.

The memo's writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within." >>

( In supplement, I cite from the strategy document in Arabic and translation:

>> The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood's name for itself] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. …

They are then to work to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption,” and the principles of “cooperation.” >>)

__________________

What is now happening, is that formerly hidden connexions to terrorism and lines of consciously subversive influence are now coming out, though trials, through exposure of financial backing and key personnel, and through now an undercover investigation.

4] CAIR's boycott threats

A boycott threat depends on the perception of widespread support.

So, the expose of lack of such widespread support is an important step in breaking the undue influence of CAIR.

Your "shoot in the foot" analogy breaks down.

5] NS, On appeasement

I have pointed out -- revisionist historians notwithstanding -- that the surviving German generals themselves are the source on what would have happened had France and the UK stood up to Hitler in the early stages of the power moves of the 1930's. Let us not forget: MUSSOLINI stopped the first attempt to intimidate and subvert Austria, by sending was it eight divisions to the Brenner pass in 1934.

When Hiter moved against the Rhinelands, he disposed of 4 available battalions as I recall. In so moving he broke the treaty of Versailles openly -- and invited a military response. (So much for the nasty attempt to imply that a strong response in defence of a peaceful order is to be equated as a "war crime" substantially comparable with the preparatory moves for a continent-wide and global power grab. ONLOOKERS, NOTICE HOW HITLER IS BEING "REHABILITATED" BY THOSE WHO OBJECT TO MY CITATION OF RELEVANT HISTORY, THROUGH THE RHETORIC OF IMMORAL EQUIVALENCE. Take warning . . . )

The French had more than enough troops (and tanks too . .. ) to back up the treaty's terms, but with the half-heartedness of the British -- who I primarily blame on this one -- they were unwilling to stand up.

Once Hitler re-occupied this forward position, he fortified the line and discombobulated the western front. By 1936 Belgium peeled off the Western alliance and set its forlorn hopes on neutrality -- which played a significant part in events in 1940.

Once Britain and France confronted a German defence line, they thought back to the Somme and Verdun and assaults on the Hindenberg line in 1917 that broke French morale and triggered mutiny, and were intimidated into passivity.

Hitler spent a year or two building up his forces to as more credible level, then struck against Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession.

Thus he outflanked Czechoslovakia and took away its key defence line. In turn, taking Czechoslovakia outflanked Poland. And then -- after being strategically dislocated -- at last the British found the gumption to stand up, when it was all but too late. And it WAS too late for the Austrians, the Czechs, the Poles, the Belgians, the Dutch and even the French.

As for the British, it was a near-run thing.

The rest is history as they say.

So, I simply do not buy the revisionism, on the facts of the actual correlation of forces c 1934 - 36, what happened when Mussolini stood up to Hitler, and what we now know from the German generals; actually have known ever since the Liddell-Hart interviews.

As to the notion that the author of Mein Kampf could ever have been appeased, I will simply cite from that book, in Ch X of its first part:

_____________

>>Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness . . . .

The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . >>

____________________

Appeasement presupposes a reasonable person willing to compromise.

Or, that by buying time one can make a better stand later. The evidence runs in the opposite direction, on both counts.

6] MME on Ac 21 - 23

MME has neatly snipped out the telling CONTEXT for Ac 21 - 23, which I highlighted.

I cited the section of the Ac -- and ALL Scripture is profitable for instruction! -- in the specific context that it was an outworking on the ground of the teachings in Rom 13:1 - 10 given just a few months previously, with the background of events in Nehemiah, Daniel and even the Pentateuch [Exodus]. In short, we see here scripture-twisting in the face of being given specific context and discussion. (Since people will usually not follow details of a complex matter step by step, this sort of strawman tactic works surprisingly often.)

The doctrine of interposition is well established and the context of Romans recognises the Roman state as a legitimate civil authority accountable to God to defend Justice. That Nero spectacularly failed in this duty once he discarded Seneca and Burris, does not change this; save that it gives further point to the issue of accountability under God.

Indeed, the famous coin incident in the gospels gives further force to this.

There is that which is of Caesar, and that which is of God. Given the reality that God is creator and that he has created the nations [cf Ac 17], Who has given Caesar that which is in his sphere of responsibility? to whom, then will Caesar account for his stewardship of justice and the power of the purse, the law and the sword? (The answers are self-evident.)

7] On force vs violence again

Force is a reality in a world in which there are wolves that have to be stopped; on pain of destroying the civil peace that protects us all.

So, whether force of words -- and "life and death lie in the power of the tongue" -- or force of the purse or force of the law and the court, or the force that backs that up, the sword, we have to address the issue of when force is just and when it is unjust.

This is a moral question, inescapably. And, it is a proper distinction to designate unjust use of force -- from tongue [e.g. destructive slander] to the sword -- as VIOLENCE.

So, words are far more dangerous and accountable than some are inclined to think, and to abuse. Of course, the naked sword is obviously a force of lethal potential, but so is the destructive tongue.

I repeat, every resort to force has to be justified, on moral grounds. And, in the context of the sword, the well known results of the breakdown of the civil peace and the domination of the sheep by the wolf make the justification plain.

I have already spoken tot he issue of the shepherd gone bad, and his correction or removal by the interposition of other civil authorities and the people. I have noted that the general election is a means to that end.

8] Strikes against Iran . . .

Of course such have not happened to date.

And, the onward tactic is a dilemma: (i) address a controversial issue on an unpopular side and alienate many emotionally, or (ii) be made to look like you are dodging issues -- never mind the actual track record above of ever increasingly tangential and polarising rhetoric using misleading rhetoric, to distract attention from and dismiss the main issue from the original post: we have an islamist fifth column at work in our civilisation.

I will go though the middle, as there is a thrd option -- the dilemma is a false one, though any response will be used doubtless to try to furter polarise the discussion. The real issue is: what is a responsible course of action in the face of a plainly growing threat.

For, only a few months back, we saw a country that had its "leaders" steal an election and abuse the power of the sword to block the people from protesting. [Notice the studied silence on such. A key step here would be to support the people of Iran and their legitimate representatives in their liberation struggle against their Islamist tyrants.]

I would think, beyond this, that a credible alternative to take out the Iranian nuke weapons programme before cities begin to go up in smoke as per declarations by Mr Ahmadinejad and co, would be a base for a serious diplomatically worked out interdiction and/or dismantling of such developments.

(Of course the gradual subversion of any such alternative -- as say the Iraq multi-billion dollar bribery of international officials scandal highlighted -- is another issue that has to be faced; and constrains the credible list of realistic options. Oil money can corrupt international institutions, as we have seen in recent years. So, the issue is neither simple nor easy to address.)

If such diplomacy backed by resolution fails, we have the very plain lesson of the 1930's in front of us. We must not forget it, lest we repeat its worst chapters, with nukes in play in the hands of an unhinged dictator this time.

That lesson is that it only takes a few years to move from a minor cloud on the horizon to a world threatening reality. But, along that path, would- be aggressors will have broken key treaties designed to protect the international peace.

So, it is those who by their arguments imply that cities have to go up in nuclear smoke and fire before serious responses can be taken [by those crippled by such blows?], who have a case to prove.

That case, I would like to hear.

____________

Onlookers, let us hope that we and our children will not face the consequences of failing to act with good sense and determination in good time even as the nuclear storm clouds gather before our eyes. And, let us hope that we will recognise the rhetorical stratagems of agents of influence and others of like ilk, that are plainly designed to confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, so that we will not see our need to act with determination before it is too late.

Good day

___________________

I trust this will be enough to help us see what is needed, if we are to move to a more responsible public discussion. END

A panel of parliamentarians in Britain wants the Cayman Islands to drop references to Christianity in the territory's new constitution.

The preamble to the constitution of that British Overseas territory affirms the intention of islanders to be a God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values tolerant of other religions and beliefs.

The British newspaper, the Mail on Sunday, says the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee objects to Christianity being singled out above other faiths in the constitutions of overseas territories.

The committee also fears that references to traditional Christian morality could undermine gay rights.

The new Caymans constitution comes into force next month.

Now, the relevant portion being objected to is the preamble, plainly inserted by the people of Cayman, and present ever since the 2003 draft.

Whereas the people of the Cayman Islands, recalling the events that have shaped their history and made them what they are, and acknowledging their distinct history, culture and Christian heritage and its enduring influence and contribution in shaping the spiritual, moral and social values that have guided their development and brought peace, prosperity and stability to those islands, through the vision, forbearance, and leadership of their people,

Affirm their intention to be -

• A God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values.• A caring community based on mutual respect for all individuals and their basic human rights.• A community which practises honest and open dialogue to ensure mutual understanding and social harmony.• A safe, secure and law abiding community.• A country which is free from crime and drug abuse.• A country with an educational system which identifies and develops on a continuing basis the abilities of each person, allowing them to reach their full potential and productivity.• A community which encourages and prepares young people to assume leadership roles.• A country which provides a comprehensive healthcare system.• A community protective of traditional Caymanian heritage and the family unit.• A country with a vibrant diversified economy, which provides full employment.• A country which makes optimal use of modern technology.• A country which manages growth and maintains prosperity, while protecting its social and natural environment.• A country which respects, protects and defends its natural resources as the basis of its existence.• A country with open, responsible and accountable government, which includes a workingpartnership with the private sector and continuing beneficial ties with the United Kingdom.• A country with an immigration system which protects Caymanians and gives security to long-term residents.

Now, therefore, the following provisions shall have effect as the Constitution of the Cayman Islands . . .

Once we do so, it is immediately obvious that the intent of the objections of the UK MPs is to forward the agenda of global de-Christianisation, by using the power of Britain as colonial power to impose a stripping of the authentic will of the people of the Cayman Islands.

For, plainly the Judaeo-Christian, Biblical and specifically Christian heritage of the Cayman Islands is a matter of centuries-deep undeniable history, as is the positive impact of that history and tradition. (Just as the Islamic history of many peoples in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia are a matter of plain record. One rather doubts that the same MPs would dare to try to strip out such an acknowledgement of history and tradition from the Constitution of an Islamic territory! [Cf the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, post 2003.])

Worse, that intent is in the particular context of advancing a controversial global homosexualist agenda, one that is plainly repugnant to the peoples of the Caribbean as a whole. And as to the scare-mongering rhetoric the MPs used, it is worth simply highlighting how the Caymanians have stated their commitment to traditional Christian values and what IMMEDIATELY follows it.

For the drafters affirmed their intent to be:

• A God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values.• A caring community based on mutual respect for all individuals and their basic human rights.• A community which practises honest and open dialogue to ensure mutual understanding and social harmony . . .

In short, the UK MPs have -- sadly, but plainly -- indulged in dishonest rhetoric through artful excerpting, not "honest and open dialogue to ensure mutual understanding and social harmony."

And, the BBC has even more plainly allowed them to get away with it.

Moreover, the real objection of the MPs [given their fulminations on "Gay Rights"] is apparently not to the preamble's intents, but to the Caymanian version of Section 9 [cf. the Montserrat version, which here has the same section number and most of the phrasing but artfully omits "of the opposite sex" . . . ]:

9.—(1) Every man and woman of marriageable age (as determined by or under any law) has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and found a family . . .

In short, the UK MPs in question hope to use colonial power to impose on unwilling Caribbean people of Judaeo-Christian heritage the novelty of so-called same-sex marriage, which is both repugnant to the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the Caribbean and which is credibly destructive to family life, the provision of a safe and stable environment for the nurture of children and corrupting of public order in general.

To that end, "rights" language is being rhetorically hijacked to create the false -- indeed, slanderous -- impression that objectors to this amoral innovation are against fundamental rights. And in that cause, the ghosts of crusades and inquisitions are being called into play, as though it has not been the case that for centuries ever since the Bible was translated at bloody cost and put in the hands of the ordinary man, the Book and the religion based on it have not been in the forefront of the march of genuine liberty.

As the classic Websters Dictionary, 1828 (as just linked) ever so aptly defines:

LIB''ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation.

Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control . . .

Moreover, the language of "rights" is not correct in this context. For, strictly, a right is a morally based claim we make against others: my right to life implies your duty to respect that life and there fore I have made a claim on you by asserting such a right. But, no-one has a duty to marry anyone, apart from freely given consent.

Instead, fundamental law should acknowledge that we have a freedom to marry one of the opposite sex and found a family without undue interference or prohibition.

Finally, we the peoples of the wider Caribbean must now stand up publicly with our brothers and sisters in the UK overseas territories and protest this amoral neo-colonial imposition.END______________

PS: It is sadly instructive to look at the tone of some of the comments from a tiny but plainly vocal anti-Christian minority, in this Caymanian news report here.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

A few days ago, World Net Daily Books released an expose on the Islamic interest group in the USA, CAIR, The Muslim Mafia.

The book is reportedly based on 12,000 pages of documentation obtained by a young man, Chris Gaubatz, who managed to become an Intern at CAIR's headquarters. According to Islam expert Daniel Pipes' review, "CAIR's inner workings revealed":

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has, since its founding in 1994, served as the Islamist movement in North America's most high-profile, belligerent, manipulative, and aggressive agency. From its headquarters in Washington, D.C., CAIR also sets the agenda and tone for the entire Wahhabi lobby.

Written by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, the investigation is based largely on the undercover work of Gaubatz's son Chris who spent six months as an intern at CAIR's D.C. headquarters in 2008. In that capacity, he acquired 12,000 pages of documentation and took 300 hours of video.

Where things get interesting for us in the Caribbean region is that on Wednesday, October 14, Barbados Underground published a post on the WND announcement of the book and the underlying findings of the investigation. That post begins with the 9/11 attacks in New York:

It is no secret to BU the 911 event which occurred in New York on the 11 September 2001 has added to tensions between the Muslim and Christian worlds. The reported terrorist acts which resulted in the demolition of the Twin Towers, damaged to the Pentagon and tragically resulted in the loss of many lifes has scared world history. The act was tracked to the Al Qaeda network by the US authorities and predictably the fallout has reverberated across the world. During the last US Presidential Election Campaign the foreign policy the candidates would adopt if elected was placed under heavy scrutiny especially concerning the current conflicts in Muslim Iraq, Afghanistan and for other reasons Iran. To President Barack Obama’s credit he fulfilled a campaign promise when he delivered a speech targeting his message at the Muslim world back in May designed to ease tension. He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.

Eight years later BU is not sure there has been any deflation of tensions even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.

It must concern President Obama now that he carries the weight of being a Nobel Laureate; the unravelling revelation in a book just released that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been fingered -in a memo obtained through Paul Sperry’s newest book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, CAIR lays out plans to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security for the purpose of influencing policy . . .

I do not like Muslims. There I admit it. They hide their women and they smell.

But I do not like Jews either.. for every reason available and those not yet discovered.

But the Christians …hah.. I take particular pleasure in despising them (other than Georgey of course). I don’t even need a reason!

It is disgusting that the media would have people blame a whole religious grouping of billions people by highlighting the acts of a few of its members, and not even take the time to prove that most of what is being said is in fact true.

“He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.” Really?

“……..even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.” Really?

Seems like a case of Stockholm Syndrome where you are in love with the real terrorists…those who have always robbed and pillaged you.

Don’t you remember when “we” were the underdogs. But somehow with the selection of BaRat as figure head you are under the illusion that something has changed? Deception! Deception!

It is beyond gullible to actually side with those pointing a finger at the muslims. If the muslims are actually criminals it is because they are working with the real judeo-christian criminals. And it is still dumbfounding that those who for the last 2500 years have suffered mercilessly at the hand of this oppressor, still lap up every drop of its drivel.

Who controls the money supply in this world to the point where they can yank it from circulation and wreak havoc on economies whose countries are run by weak-minded leaders?

Cui Bono? Follow the money!

And day by day BaRat Obama is proving himself to be nothing but a marionette and a LIAR!

Don’t forget that there is that Goldstone report out there, so they must keep re-directing your focus.

And don’t forget that all this is leading up to the attack on Iran. Hillary is globe-trekking in an effort to get others to form yet another coalition against Iran.

Who owns and control what you see in the media…the “jews” and obviously the local media are nothing but lapdogs.

And one of the the biggest threats to this planet is coming directly from the christian armageddonists and the zionists.

@ Zoe…..please dont start with your crap !!!The Bible also has many verses similar to the Qur’an,in terms of dealing with non believers.

Yet still you ‘chose’ this book as your salvation.Christians will always hate Muslims and vice versa….it is the nature of man to hate what you don’t understand.

I bet you celebrated Columbus Day too and we all know he was a d___ blasted LIAR (Burning Spear).For years we were made to believe that he ‘discovered’ the world, when there is proof that the Khemetians were making this trip 5000 years before him in boats built from papyrus.

…When the twin towers were attacked and it was discovered that muslims were behind it , muslims celebrated it in the streets and in the mosques while america mourned in shock. THAT IS A FACT.

Please dont come here and lie!!The footage that was shown immediately after the strike on the WTC on the CNN networks and Fox has BEEN PROVEN to be old footage from celebrations in the Arab world taken years before.The same Networks had to apologize but it was all done to create the necessary reaction to get the masses in agreement for what was to come next.

It is so unfortunate to read some of the comments regarding Muslims on this blog. Just taking quotes from the Qu’ran, totally out of context is uneducated. The same can be done with parts of the Bible and for sure from the Torah.How odd it is, that some would stereotype ALL Muslims based on the actions of some….recalling few past horrible, yet independent instances. Very similar to the stereotypes many put onto black people…because of the actions of a few.There are bad Muslims, good Muslims and everything in between. Sadly, what you all see and hear about is the 1% of VERY HORRIBLE people who under the guise of Islam execute their hidden political agendas through violence. In fact, my Islam, and the Islam of the rest of the 99% of Muslims, is a peace loving one with love for everyone regardless of creed, race and religions.God/Allah in the Quran says“O mankind! We have created you as male and female, and made you nations and tribes, so that you may know one another” (49:13)

[ . . . . ]

We could go on, and thankfully there were some significant counter-balancing comments. but the above documents a very worrying pattern.

Take a quiet breath, please, count to 10, then go back to Mr Blackett’s posts above and READ.

Especially Q 9:5 — the sword verse, and 9:29 — the verse of tribute (Jizya as a discriminatory mark of humiliation and permanent subjugation).

THEN go read the history of Islam from the 600’s on, including the subjugation and slaughter of Jewish tribes at Medina by Mohammed, what happened to Mecca, and to Arabia at large. Then, what the first four “rightly guided” Caliphs did, and how that led to Islam’s spread by conquest from India to Spain and France by the early 700’s.

Q 9:5 and 29 are not that hard to understand against that backdrop. Nor the admitted actions of Al Qaeda on Sept 11, 2001. (Cf even so humble a source as this, as a beginning point . . . )

(And while you are at it, it was the Englishman who owned the merchant ships and bought the slaves that came to this part of the world, but who were the pirates who rob I and sold I? Who continue to do same to this day in Sudan, Mauritania etc. . . . [remember, right up into C19, Europeans had big problems surviving in Africa in the face of the diseases there. Worse than in the Caribbean: look at the regimental records of deaths on postings to the Caribbean in St Michael's Cathedral, including when things began to taper off.]] )

And, in fact the hadith on the Black Flag armies and that infamous Al Qaeda recruitment video [cf here] make it plain that from Khorasan (look it up on Wikipedia . . . Iran, Afghanistan [and neighbourhood] ) the end times armies of the Mahdi will on hadithic eschatology rise up and conquer the ME — slaughtering the Jews [cf Hamas Charter article 7 which quotes the relevant hadith verbatim as its final words] — then subjugate the whole world to the E and the W. (Hadiths are the handed on traditions of M, and are the basis for interpreting the Q, making hem the effective no 2 holy book of Islam.)

So, while we are for good reason fearful of the frying pan of Western Imperial domain on grounds of history [and we should remember that this can also come to us in the form of internationalist or liberationist movements or "reform"/ "protest" movements that claim to help us . . . don't ever forget that Nazism was an explicitly SOCIALIST movement, one that cut a deal with the industrialists in the interests of the "nation" instead of shooting them outright; it also pointed to British and French imperialism and American slaughter of Amerindians to distract attention from its intentions . . . ], we have not learned the history of the other major imperial tradition of our time.

And, above, it shows.

So, let us not jump from frying pan into fire.

[ . . . . ]

Astonishingly, while a former muslim responded : "POWERFUL STUFF!!! Blessing on you…" the main response onward seemed to be this from a Mr Cadogan:

“it was the Englishman who owned the merchant ships and bought the slaves that came to this part of the world”

Don’t fool yourself and others, most of the slave ships were owned and operated by Jews.

Jewish slave ship owners

Caracoa, Moses and Sam Levy.

Crown Issac Levy and Nathan Simpson

Hester Mordecai and David Gomez

Antigua Nathan Marston and Abram Lyell

This of course distorts the basic fact that by the eighteenth century, the largest single carrying trade of British shipping was the slave trade. this wqas so much the case that the Royal navy's leadership opposed the abolition of the slave trade as a threat to the navy's ability to recruit seasoned sailors.

Thereafter the thread has gone into further spleen venting.

I think we need to seriously and soberly reflect on what is happening in our region, and how many of our fellow Caribbean people are now thinking in a world in which Internet hate and conspiracy theory sites are a click or two away. END

______________

PS: As a beginning, I will just note that a pancake collapse of the twin towers triggered by large commercial aircraft with almost full fuel loads in them is not that hard to figure out, as once the steel heats up enough it will soften, then once ONE floor fails, the cumulative pile-driver blows of falling upper floors will destroy the building; as has long been analysed in great details by responsible engineering consultants. I also excerpt the Wikipedia article on responsibility for the 9-11 attacks as a first quick reference. This will give us a fairly clear picture on where the weight of evidence lies:

The FBI investigation into the attacks, codenamed operation PENTTBOM, was able to identify the 19 hijackers within days, as they made little effort to conceal their names on flight, credit card, and other records.[6] By checking flight manifests and comparing them with other information, like watch lists, customs officials were able to quickly find the names of all 19 hijackers.

Passengers and crew aboard the flights provided information about the hijackers while the hijacking was in progress. Two flight attendants on American Airlines Flight 11, Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney, contacted airline personnel on the ground. Sweeney provided the seat numbers of the hijackers, and descriptions of the men, identifying Muhammad Atta as one of the hijackers.[7][8][9] A flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 175 called a United Airlines mechanic and reported that hijackers had killed the crew.[9] While the hijacking was in progress on American Airlines Flight 77, several passengers, including a flight attendant, Renee May, contacted and reported details of the hijacking to persons on the ground.[10] Sales clerks identified two individuals to whom they sold tickets on Flight 77 as the hijackers Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed.[9] During the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, Jeremy Glick identified the hijackers as Arabic-looking and carrying knives.[11]

Mohamed Atta's luggage did not make the connection from his Portland flight to American Airlines Flight 11. In his suitcase, authorities found a handwritten letter in Arabic. As well, a handwritten letter was found at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and another in Hazmi's vehicle.[12] When examining Mohamed Atta's left-behind luggage, the FBI found important clues about the hijackers and their plans. Atta's luggage contained instructional videotapes for flying large aircraft, a fuel consumption calculator, and a flight plan, along with a copy of the Quran.[13] His luggage also contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers, along with a copy of Atta's last will and testament.[14] The passport of hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari was also found in Mohamed Atta’s left-behind luggage.

Various items of evidence were found in vehicles left behind at the airports, in luggage that did not make it onto the flights, and at the crash scenes. A rental car belonging to the hijackers was found at Boston's Logan International Airport, which contained an Arabic language flight manual and documents from Huffman Aviation in Florida. There, investigators were able to find Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi's previous address in Hamburg, Germany.[15]Nawaf al-Hazmi's 1988 blue Toyota Corolla was found on September 12 in Dulles International Airport's hourly parking lot. Inside the vehicle, authorities found a letter written by Mohamed Atta, maps of Washington, D.C. and New York City, a cashier's check made out to a Phoenix flight school, four drawings of a Boeing 757 cockpit, a box cutter-type knife, and a page with notes and phone numbers.[16]

In New York City, a passport belonging to Satam al-Suqami was found by a passerby before the towers collapsed, and given to a NYPD detective.[17][18] The passports of two of the hijackers of Flight 93 were also found intact at the crash site.

On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many.[19]

[ . . . . ]

In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.[69]

In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression" and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people. [70]

Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

In an audio message that surfaced on the Internet in May 2006 the speaker, who is alleged to be Osama bin Laden, defends Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the September 11 attacks. The voice in the audio message says

"I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers — Allah have mercy upon them — with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission."[72]

[ . . . ]

___________>>

Those who wish to assert "insider job" conspiracy theories and the like therefore have some significant direct evidence to account for and overturn.

Search This Blog

About Me

A Caribbean-based applied scientist, educator and strategic change/ transformation advocate and facilitator; speaking out for record and calling to reformation in light of the patently destructive policy/ geostrategic/ propaganda/ spiritual/ moral- cultural and economic agenda tidal waves pounding on our shores with ever-mounting force. In response to which, we must learn the lesson of Ps 32:9: "Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding, which must be curbed with bit and bridle . . . "

As Economic policy is too important to be left to economists, politicians and their spin doctors, kindly cf. a KF 101 series on pivotal macro-economics principles and issues: 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, b/g (NB: pamphlet -- pdf -- here)